Low Dose test and 20 Mg Sarms Bloodwork

maximillia

maximillia

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
I would like to share with you my bloodwork on 375 Mg of test and 20 Mg of Sarms- 10 Mg LGD and 10 Mg RAD 140.
EDIT: I am also using HCG, 250iu twice a week.
That amount of test isn't exactly low dose, (well for some it could be), but whatever. I don't know. Here it is:

Liver:

test cycle liver.png


So, the ALT and the AST are out of Range. Not Great, Not Terrible. Please look at these values and tell me if these are really bad and I should quit the sarms. Also, I must mention that previously, I got tested while taking 80 mg of Sarms (Yes, I am stupid). and all the liver values were in range. My current explanation is that I was running a better cycle support stack then. Now, I am taking milk thistle and not much more. Back then, I was taking mil thistle and ALA and NAC. I have now ordered the latter two items.

Also, how does this compare to something like 20 mg of Dbol? If Dbol doesn't give you anything worse than this, I fail to see why I should use Sarms.

Lipids:
test cycle lipids.png


Out of Range again. Far better than where I was on 80 Mg of Sarms, to be sure. I would like it if somebody commented on these values. Honestly, I am rather pissed at Sarms. Should I be?

Kidneys:
test cycle kidneys (2).png

test cycle kidneys.png



Kidneys appear to be fine. Yay. I guess.

There was a hemogram as well and those values were fine, hematocrit is in range.
 
Last edited:

Mathb33

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
Another great great great exemple of why sarms is one big lie because of the thousands of people that spread rumors saying sarms aren’t toxic but in reality none of these people got bloodwork done. Now I know some people will come in and defend sarms saying it could’ve been the testosterone bla bla. No. No it can’t be the 350mg of test. Nope. About your bloodworks... you’re fine bro nothing is crazy out of range it’ll go back to normal within a few weeks. The thing is anavar,turinabol,dbol etc would give similar or the exact same bloodworks... except with much more gains. That’s the whole point. Not that sarms are horribly toxic... simply that for the toxicity they deliver there’s much better compounds that’ll be similarly toxic but yield much much MUCH better results.
 
maximillia

maximillia

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
Another great great great exemple of why sarms is one big lie because of the thousands of people that spread rumors saying sarms aren’t toxic but in reality none of these people got bloodwork done. Now I know some people will come in and defend sarms saying it could’ve been the testosterone bla bla. No. No it can’t be the 350mg of test. Nope. Anyways you’re fine bro nothing is crazy out of range it’ll go back to normal within a few weeks. The thing is anavar,turinabol,dbol etc would give similar or the exact same bloodworks... except with much more gains. That’s the whole point. Not that sarms are horribly toxic... simply that for the toxicity they deliver there’s much more compound that’ll be similarly toxic but yield much much MUCH better results.
That's exactly the info I was looking for. If Dbol and co are nothing worse than this, then the point of Sarms is truly lost on me. Frankly, I could have just been doing Dbol cycles all over the place and probably look far far bigger right now. Well, live and learn.
 

jim2509

Active member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • Established
Think i might stick to Halodrol with 4 andro or Dermacrine as base for next cycle rather than go back to Sarms. Never tried Halo either.
 
BennyMagoo79

BennyMagoo79

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
LGD and s23 raise my enzymes, but nothing crazy. Cholesterol is usually in range though. I've always moderately dosed though.
 

CroLifter

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
Another great great great exemple of why sarms is one big lie because of the thousands of people that spread rumors saying sarms aren’t toxic but in reality none of these people got bloodwork done. Now I know some people will come in and defend sarms saying it could’ve been the testosterone bla bla. No. No it can’t be the 350mg of test. Nope. About your bloodworks... you’re fine bro nothing is crazy out of range it’ll go back to normal within a few weeks. The thing is anavar,turinabol,dbol etc would give similar or the exact same bloodworks... except with much more gains. That’s the whole point. Not that sarms are horribly toxic... simply that for the toxicity they deliver there’s much better compounds that’ll be similarly toxic but yield much much MUCH better results.
Man i ran 500 test and at the time abused the sh1t out of aromasin...i was an idiot...talking non detectable e2

My lipids were in range, my hdl towards the lower end, ldl in the upper half and total in the middle.

And i am sure had i used hcg at the time the ldl and total would be a tad lower.

This bloodwork is reflective of someone running anavar or turinabol, from what i have seen.
 
Smont

Smont

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
So 80mg of sarms really is not stupid, running 800mg of tren is stupid and people do it all the time.

First a question. Maybe I missed il go look but is there any baseline values where your on nothing, or have been on nothing for a extended period of time?

I didn't see anything alarming on your blood work.

Sarms dosed at "bodybuilding" numbers are liver toxic. If you took 2mg of Anadrol per day it probably won't have any negatives on your bloodwork. But we don't take 2mg, we take 50+ because 2mg won't build muscle.

If you take sarms at the doses that were studied they are safe and produce no gains, if you take them at recommend doses there still pretty safe and produce small gains.

Take 50mg of lgd per day and your going to build muscle. I'm 200% confident for myself that 50mg lgd per day will build the same or more muscle then 50mg tbol. But now you got mild steroids results and mild steroids side effects.

Everyone needs to stop treating these as sarms and steroids and treat them all as anabolics. Pick the ones you like and use them when they suite your needs. They definitely have a place, but there place is not to replace. If that makes sense
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
maximillia

maximillia

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
So 80mg of sarms really is not stupid, running 800mg of tren is stupid and people do it all the time.

First a question. Maybe I missed il go look but is there any baseline values where your on nothing, or have been on nothing for a extended period of time?

I didn't see anything alarming on your blood work.

Sarms dosed at "bodybuilding" numbers are liver toxic. If you took 2mg of Anadrol per day it probably won't have any negatives on your bloodwork. But we don't take 2mg, we take 50+ because 2mg won't build muscle.

If you take sarms at the doses that were studied they are safe and produce no gains, if you take them at recommend doses there still pretty safe and produce small gains.

Take 50mg of lgd per day and your going to build muscle. I'm 200% confident for myself that 50mg lgd per day will build the same or more muscle then 50mg tbol. But now you got mild steroids results and mild steroids side effects.

Everyone needs to stop treating these as sarms and steroids and treat them all as anabolics. Pick the ones you like and use them when they suite your needs. They definitely have a place, but there place is not to replace. If that makes sense
I do have baseline numbers from september of 2019, when everything was in range. I don't have baseline numbers closer to this cycle. I am running this cycle after 2 months of having run another. It is possible that my values hadn't recovered by now. However, keep in mind, that's the cycle with 80mg of sarms. So, if they are contributing to my values now, it's still the cumulative effect of sarms and no other anabolic.
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
It is common on cycle, and also common on TRT...that's why I was asking.

I'm on TRT, and considering HCG to bring my ball size back up some. I don't care about the fertility aspect.
 

jim2509

Active member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • Established
So in light of the above what's peoples general opinions of the likes of Lgd/Rad 140 Vs Halodrol, Epi, DMZ as the gap around toxicity/sides/ seems to be more narrow than many suppliers like to make out.

Wondering whether when I start my cycle not to bother with Sarms and just use Halo with MK677 and 4-Andro or Dermacrine.
 

Mathb33

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
So in light of the above what's peoples general opinions of the likes of Lgd/Rad 140 Vs Halodrol, Epi, DMZ as the gap around toxicity/sides/ seems to be more narrow than many suppliers like to make out.

Wondering whether when I start my cycle not to bother with Sarms and just use Halo with MK677 and 4-Andro or Dermacrine.
I wouldn’t exaggerate this either of course methylated prohormones like dmz msten are obviously going to be a lot harsher than anything else. They are extremely toxic. My point was more let’s say sarms were a 2 points for gains and 2 points for toxicity. Well with something like anavar turinabol and a few other not too harsh steroids, you could get let say 3 points for gains for the same toxicity. Making sarms not as useful as some people make them to be. Of course this points thing I just made that out completly to help present my thoughts.
 
maximillia

maximillia

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
It is common on cycle, and also common on TRT...that's why I was asking.

I'm on TRT, and considering HCG to bring my ball size back up some. I don't care about the fertility aspect.
I say go for it. I don't see any negatives at all.
 
maximillia

maximillia

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
I wouldn’t exaggerate this either of course methylated prohormones like dmz msten are obviously going to be a lot harsher than anything else. They are extremely toxic. My point was more let’s say sarms were a 2 points for gains and 2 points for toxicity. Well with something like anavar turinabol and a few other not too harsh steroids, you could get let say 3 points for gains for the same toxicity. Making sarms not as useful as some people make them to be. Of course this points thing I just made that out completly to help present my thoughts.
You mean to say, they are not completely useless but not as useful as people think or they are made out to be?
 

jim2509

Active member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • Established
I wouldn’t exaggerate this either of course methylated prohormones like dmz msten are obviously going to be a lot harsher than anything else. They are extremely toxic. My point was more let’s say sarms were a 2 points for gains and 2 points for toxicity. Well with something like anavar turinabol and a few other not too harsh steroids, you could get let say 3 points for gains for the same toxicity. Making sarms not as useful as some people make them to be. Of course this points thing I just made that out completly to help present my thoughts.
Well put. Yes there's the high end PH stuff as you pointed out and to be fair i'm more interested in perhaps Hdrol for 5/6 weeks instead of running Lgd/rad for 8-12 weeks which as you pointed out, perhaps not as side free as we all thought or were led to believe. There seems to be a few stockists in the UK who are now moving away from Sarms, whether that's because of raws issues or a clampdown I'm not sure.
 

Similar threads


Top